BdS misunderstands Fermat's Last Theorem

Rpenner handled this with AAA+++ moderating skills, it’s a case of a error on the article and rpenner putting me back on the narrow path. Thank you sir.

Does Mr Wiles’s work for the positive integers replicate/clone to the negative integers? And can you see the lonely little zero on its own just begging for a explanation?

It would be pointless to start analyzing o in the situation till Mr Wiles's proof had been confirmed, but now that it has...
 
rpenner said:
Since 0 is not a positive integer
Click to expand...
I like to think of 0 as the only positive and negative integer that's why it sits right in the middle to be used in both sets, but that's just a straw man comment. 0 is still 0 its not null, Null is this
 
How can something be both positive and negative? Wouldn't that make it neutral?
 
BdS said:
I like to think of 0 as the only positive and negative integer that's why it sits right in the middle to be used in both sets, but that's just a straw man comment. 0 is still 0 its not null, Null is this
Click to expand...
You are attempting to argue with a definition. That is contrary to the practice of logic and mathematics.
 
BdS said:
Do neutrons contain similar or equal amounts of positive and negative energy to make them neutral?
Click to expand...
What is "neutral" about a neutron is its electrical charge.

Neutrons do contain equal amounts of positive and negative charge, which makes then neutral.
 
Other particles exist which neither positive nor negative electrical charge and these, too, are neutral.
 
BdS said:
Do neutrons contain similar or equal amounts of positive and negative energy to make them neutral?
Click to expand...

From wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron


Structure and geometry of charge distribution[edit]
An article published in 2007 featuring a model-independent analysis concluded that the neutron has a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core.[68] In a simplified classical view, the negative "skin" of the neutron assists it to be attracted to the protons with which it interacts in the nucleus. (However, the main attraction between neutrons and protons is via the nuclear force, which does not involve charge.)
 
In positive integers:
1 - 1 = ?
10 - 12 = ?

In negative integers:
-1 - -1 = ?
-10 - -12 = ?
 
BdS said:
1-1=seriously?

No its not, its equal to

1 - 1 = 1
10 - 12 = 1

-1 - -1 = -1
-10 - -12 = -1

or

1 - 1 = 0
10 - 12 = 0

-1 - -1 = 0
-10 - -12 = 0
Click to expand...
You're not to hot at arithmetic fella.
 
origin said:
1 - 1 = 0
10 - 12 = -2
Click to expand...
This is for the positive integers.
1 - 1 = 0
I agree with this, but is zero a positive integer?

10 - 12 = -2
In the full integer range that is the correct answer, but -2 is not a positive integer.

origin said:
In negative integers:
-1 - -1 = 0
-10 - -12 = 2
Click to expand...
This is for the negative integers.
-1 - -1 = 0
I agree with this, but is zero a negative integer?

-10 - -12 = 2
In the full integer range that is the correct answer, but 2 is not a negative integer.




I am trying to prove 0 is both a positive and negative integer with those calculations.
If 0 is both a positive and negative integer then the answers are:
This is BdS's answers.
1 - 1 = 0
10 - 12 = 0

-1 - -1 = 0
-10 - -12 = 0

If 0 is not a positive or negative integer then the answers are:
This is rpenner's answers, I think?
1 - 1 = 1
10 - 12 = 1

-1 - -1 = -1
-10 - -12 = -1

Which are the correct answers? I dont know.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top